Finally, The Christian Century has published this lengthy report of a visit to the Creation Museum. It was written by Jason Byassee. Most of the article is a bemused and slightly cynical account of the exhibits you find at the museum. It was the last paragraph that really caught my eye, however:

Reconciling Christian claims about God, creation and humanity with the findings of Darwin and his successors is an important and daunting task, one that mainline theology has still not satisfactorily accomplished. AiG can hardly be faulted for attempting the task, though its effort is a spectacular failure.

Two excellent sentences. I recommend having a look at the whole thing.

Reconciling Christian claims about God, creation and humanity with the findings of Darwin and his successors is an important and daunting task, one that mainline theology has still not satisfactorily accomplished. AiG can hardly be faulted for attempting the task,

How has AiG attempted to reconcile “Christian claims about God, creation and humanity with the findings of Darwin and his successors”? It looks more like the AiG rejects the findings of Darwin and his successors — the article also says,

A few curious visitors walk in unawares. One asks the ticket-seller whether the museum “integrates the Bible and Darwin.” The clerk replies, “It’s more like the Bible versus Darwin” and then leads the visitor inside.

I’ve found something that I can agree on with Larry Fafarman. Larry is right, AiG decidedly does not attempt to reconcile Christian claims about God, creation and humanity with the findings of Darwin and his successors.
On the AiG site Ken Ham states:

It should be obvious that the Bible contradicts all seven ‘contributions’ of Darwin in some way. Mixing the two results in an unholy mess. Do oil and water mix? What fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14). Let us not try to mix evolution and the Bible � they just don’t go together!

Meh. The article was a bit of a washout for me. It didn’t really confront any of the empirical claims of the museum displays, either dismissing them or turning them into a joke. The author seemed to be much more concerned with drawing a bright line between reasonable theism and young earth creationism. His substantive points were theological rather than scientific.

I think you’re being a bit too literal in jumping on Byassee’s use of the word “reconcile.” I think his point was simply that AiG is at least confronting head-on the challenge to Christianity posed by evolutionary theory, while more mainstream theology often tries to evade the problem. Granted, AiG confronts the problem by trying to refute every bit of science that conflicts with their view of things, but they certainly can not be accused of trying to avoid the issue!

“Which is about what you’d expect from a magazine called the Christian Century, right?”

Sure, but it’s also spectacularly missing the point. I understand “normal” Christians having theological issues with fundies, but the problem with the museum isn’t its theology. If you turn evolution vs creationism into a debate about how to interpret the Bible, science loses.

If you turn evolution vs creationism into a debate about how to interpret the Bible, science loses.

I think that both are important.

When talking to school boards about what to teach in science classes, it’s all about science. No ifs or buts about that. In science classes, you teach science. No “equal time” for stuff that isn’t science. Just teach the damn science.

In this discussion, you’re trying to win over disinterested observers who may not have thought about evolution much, and who might think that giving kids all the information seems like a good idea. You’re trying to show that creationism has nothing to add to your science class.

When you’re talking to Christians who might get sucked in by AiG, on the other hand, then it is a debate about how to interpret the Bible.

You’re a city boy, I think. Maybe, just pretending to be one for the sake of the joke, but I can tell you most every chicken born on a modern farm has been sexed. By a human. After some instruction and practise, you could learn to do it too. It would surprise me a little if they did it with machines now.

How does young-earth creationism make sense to intelligent, well-meaning people? Well, much of any religion appears counterfactual. After all, preachers in liberal churches proclaim that a Jewish peasant executed by an empire is the God who rules the cosmos, and that we should love our enemies and that the poor are blessed. If you can believe that stuff, you can believe a lot.

Not the kind of insight I would expect from an assistant editor of such a magazine. Almost qualifies for that Critical Thinking claim in their masthead.

I thought it was a very marginal article. AiG claims to be biblically based, but they cut and paste to match their preconceived viewpoint like anyone else. How can they reconcile Genesis with modern astronomy – a dome over the earth with windows for rain and stars/planets attached. In terms of science, it is either all or nothing.

The site is currently under maintenance. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.